No, I think he means this Hillary.

Posted at August 28, 2008 11:02 AM in response to Recommend this if you think TPM needs more Hillary news

So Reagan wielded an axe, but Bush swings a chainsaw. Ironic, no? No.

They say that the day Bush bought that chainsaw, on the promise that it could cut a cord of wood in an hour, he returned it to the store, looking exhausted, and said that he'd barely been able to cut down a single tree in an hour. When the salesman fired up the chainsaw, Bush said "What's that noise?"

(With apologies to Garrison Keillor)

Posted at July 17, 2008 11:27 AM in response to White House Says Bush Library Won't Inform Bush About Its Donors

Well, considering you're a British subject, you aren't allowed to vote in the US elections anyway, so it certainly won't be your fault anyway.

;)

Posted at June 20, 2008 4:28 PM in response to Obama Backing FISA "Compromise"

I would have hoped that instead of "holding up FISA legislation", the Dems could have supported a bill that didn't have telecom immunity and also didn't have a veto-proof majority. Then it would have been Bush "holding up FISA legislation".

It seemed so simple to me.

Posted at June 20, 2008 4:25 PM in response to Obama Backing FISA "Compromise"

I don't see how he could vote for the bill with immunity in it, and then work to strip immunity after he's President. For one thing, who would believe that he means it? For another, Presidents have the power to pardon (ie. GRANT immunity retroactively), but they don't have the power to prosecute people who have been granted immunity (ie. revoke immunity retroactively). Don't see how that would work for him.

So unless he takes us for idiots, he must mean he would work to strip immunity now (and presumably vote against a bill with immunity in it).

Posted at June 20, 2008 4:21 PM in response to Obama Backing FISA "Compromise"

Instead I would argue that McCain has a Sept 12, 2001 mindset. Remember that was the day when we were all panicking and knew practically nothing about what had happened.

Posted at June 17, 2008 12:50 PM in response to McCain Campaign Accuses Obama Of Having "A September 10th Mindset"

Holy fucking shit. Why isn't such a threat by KBR regarded (and prosecuted) as treason?

Posted at June 17, 2008 11:16 AM in response to Today's Must Read

According to USA Today reporter Barbara Slavin's book Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies, the Iranian proposal was as follows. Iran would join us in the fight against al Qaeda and support stabilization efforts in Iraq. It would open its nuclear program to full international inspection. It would end its support for Hamas, disarm Hezbollah in Lebanon, and it would recognize and accept Israel.

In exchange the United States would drop its sanctions against Iran and pledge to end its pursuit of regime change.

In other words, we would get everything we want from Iran in exchange for promising, after almost three decades of rejection, to simply accept the permanence of the Iranian regime. That is little more than acknowledging that it is up to the Iranian people to implement regime change in Iran--not us.

Well, if we take ourselves back to that glorious yesteryear of 2003, we would not have gotten everything we wanted. We (that is to say, the Bush regime) wanted to implement regime change. Iran didn't represent a different course of possible action than Iraq. Iran was "next".

I don't think it is possible to get the Bushies to consider more than giving lip service to the diplomatic option. It is not in their interest. They have too much invested in their plans for world domination. Attacking Iran is the only way for them to keep that dream alive.

That is not to say that the Bushies are going to be able to get away with it.

The only thing we (that is to say, the rest of us, the saner community of Americans who are not Bush, Cheney, Rice, and their regime) can do is to forestall an attack on Iran until the Democrats are in the White House, and to hope that the Iranians are wise enough to forestall any stupid choices of their own in the meantime. After all, if the Iranians are as pragmatic as Trita Parsi says they are, they are keeping an eye on the possibility that an Obama administration would be willing to talk with them, and that Obama has a very good chance of winning the election.

Posted at June 15, 2008 8:22 AM in response to Iran: Negotiations Should Not Be The Last Resort

I see what you did there ;)

Posted at June 6, 2008 2:09 PM in response to Where is Wells Fargo?

'Scuse me, I meant "AlwaysConfused"

Posted at June 6, 2008 9:17 AM in response to Where is Wells Fargo?